Austerity applesauce

Any new Mayor of Bristol will have very hard budget choices forced on them it seems, given that, 'One of the first jobs facing Bristol's incoming elected mayor will be to cut an extra £25 million from the city councils budget. The authority has revealed it faces making deeper cuts than first anticipated as funding from central government is reduced.' (see here). However, that should not stop whoever the Mayor is from giving voice to the growing numbers of people who see the complete folly of cuts and austerity economics.

Govt borrowing is up AND we've had savage cuts. In fact Govt borrowing is up in part BECAUSE we've had savage cuts. Cuts are depressing economic activity. Austerity policies, pronouncements, plans and actions have reduced confidence, reduced spending, reduced investment, increased costs to govt, reduced govt income...and have been a big help (!) in causing and then lengthening the recession we are still in (thanks to Dave, George, Nick, Vince and co). I support the case against austerity and cuts and for a Keynsian stimulus for our economy to get out of recession and going in a sustainable direction.

Council costs

The city council could close more than 20 of its office buildings in a long-term plan to save £40 million. The shake-up could mean a new lease of life for a former bonded warehouse next to the River Avon, which could revitalise a neglected corner of Bristol near the Cumberland Basin. (see here). Councillors should be asking a large number of questions about the rather bold statement of claimed benefits of this proposal and they should especially scrutinise these kind of figures/estimates:

 "The cost of the offices shake-up would be an estimated £70 million, with money borrowed at preferential rates over many years. But the council's treasury officials believe that within 15 years they will have recouped all the costs. And within 25 years the scheme would deliver an overall saving of nearly £40 million."

Could you not radically change the way the council works and use far fewer buildings in many different ways? Have other options been fully explored? Is this the best option? My concern is the £70 million cost and whether this would stay at £70 million and whether it would be paid back as officials estimate.

Surely not a decision for the council but for the Mayor elected in November in any case.